[eebill] RE: Kids Interview Case
Gita Dewan Verma
purplepapaya36 at hotmail.com
Tue Oct 26 13:22:08 CDT 2004
Dear Ashok,
We have in High Court since December 2003 a clutch of matters seeking
enforcement of statutory Delhi Master Plan Equal Access Neighbourhood School
System / Common School System. Please see:
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/FILES/schools/mpisg
I gather, from your preference for policy / suggestions, that you all
consider the statutory DMP provisions for neighbourhood school system
inadequate. I would be very interested in this critique.
Best regards,
Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
>From: "Ashok" <socialjur at mantraonline.com>
>To: "Gita Diwan Verma TownPlanner" <purplepapaya36 at hotmail.com>, "Ghanshyam
>JUDAV" <judav_jharkhand at yahoo.com>, "Gerry Pinto UNICEF"
><gpinto at unicef.org>, "Geeta" <geeta at cemd.org>, "gaysu arvind"
><cosmic at vsnl.com>
>Subject: Kids Interview Case
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:57:28 +0530
>
>Dear Friend,
>
>This affidavit has been filed in the High Court on 23.10.2004 through
>Advocate Ashok Agarwal and the matter is coming up for hearing on
>01.11.2004. The case involved the question of validity of subjecting kids
>of 3+ age and their parents to test and interview for admission of the kids
>in LKG/UKG and class one by private schools. The question of implementing
>Neghbourhood School Policy is also involved in this case. We request you to
>kindly send your suggestions and the material in support of such
>suggestions to be placed before the High Court.
>
>With regards, Social Jurist Team. (24.10.2004)
>
>
>
>IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
>L.P.A. NO. 196 OF 2004
>
>
>
>IN THE MATTER OF:
>
>SHRI RAKESH GOEL AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS
>
>
>
>VERSUS
>
>
>
>MONTFORT SCHOOL AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
>
>
>
>SUGGESIONS BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF
>
>THE PUBLIC STUDY GROUP ON CABE COMMITTEES
>
>
>
> I, Radhika Menon, Secretary, Public Study Group
>(PSG) on CABE (Central Advisory Board of Education) Committees, c/o Council
>for Social Development, 53, Lodhi Estate, New Delhi-110003 (Phone No.
>24615383, 24611700), do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: -
>
>
>
> I say that I am the Secretary of the Public Study
>Group on CABE Committees and I am authorized and competent to swear this
>affidavit on behalf of the said Group.
>
>
>
>1. The Public Study Group on CABE is a group of
>academics, educationists, researchers and social activists who have come
>together to support and strengthen the recently constituted CABE committees
>on educational matters including the common school system and the free and
>compulsory education bill, by collecting and collating data, research
>evidences, experiences, policy documents, constitutional and other legal
>provisions. It is submitted that while PSG is enlisting cooperation and
>support from concerned citizens; its activities are being coordinated and
>guided by a core group consisting of the following members: Dr. Sarwat Ali,
>Lecturer, Institute of Advanced Studies in Education, Jamila Millia
>Islamia; Mr. Somiya Dutta, BJVJ activist and environment education; Dr.
>Anita Ghai, Reader in psychology, Jesus and Mary College, Delhi University;
>Mr. Madan Mohan Jha, Joint Secretary (on study leave), M/O HRD and
>researcher at Oxford University; Mr. Ravi Kumar, Fellow, Council for Social
>Development; Mr. Sanjeev Mathur, BJVJ activist and cultural worker; Dr.
>Benard D' Mellow, Senior Consultant, Planning Commission; Ms. Radhika
>Menon, Ph.D scholar at Zakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies, JNU;
>Ms. Madhu Prasad, Reader in philosophy, Zakir Hussain College, Delhi
>University; Professor Anil Sadgopal, Department of Education, Delhi
>University and senior fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and Dr.
>Vijendra Sharma, Reader in Physics, Delhi University.
>
>
>
>2. That having seen the media report that this Hon'ble
>Court is looking into the matter of interviews and selection of young
>children and/or their parents, and the Court has called upon the concerned
>citizens to submit their view points, we are filing this affidavit to argue
>against any form of selection or interview or interactions either with
>young children or with their parents being done by the city's private
>schools. We are also making some suggestions for consideration by this
>Hon'ble Court.
>
>
>
>3. That at the outset, we would like to submit that the
>matter relates to the National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986 (as modified
>in 1992). The policy is committed to take 'effective measures' 'in the
>direction of the common school system recommended in the 1968 policy'. The
>relevant portion of the NPE is reproduced below:
>
>
>
>"3.2. The concept of a National System of Education implies that, up to a
>given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex,
>have access to education of comparable quality. To achieve this, the
>Government will initiate appropriately funded programmes. Effective measure
>will be taken in the direction of the Common School System recommended in
>the 1968 Policy."
>
>
>
>
>
>The 1968 national policy states as under:
>
>
>
>"Equalization of Educational Opportunity: (b) 'To promote social cohesion
>and national integration the Common School System as recommended by the
>Education Commission should be adopted. Efforts should be made to improve
>standard of education in general school. All special schools like public
>schools should be required to admit students on the basis of merit and also
>to provided a prescribed proportion of free-studentships to prevent
>segregation of social classes. This will not, however, affect the rights of
>minorities under Article 30 of the Constitution".
>
>
>
>4. That the 'question of merit' relates to children at
>higher stages but for the young children who are just to begin their
>schooling, the education commission recommended for the Neghbourhood
>Schools (NS), which the governments are bound to implement. The
>commission's recommendation on the needs and concept of the NS is
>reproduced:
>
>
>
>"10.19 The Neighbourhood Schools. We drew attention earlier to the social
>segregation that now takes place in our primary and secondary schools and
>pointed out that such segregation should be eliminated if education is to
>be made a powerful instrument of national development in general, and
>social and national integration in particular. From this point of view, we
>recommend the ultimate adoption of the 'neighbourhood school concept' first
>at the lower primary stage and than at the higher primary. The
>neighbourhood school concept implies that each school should be attended by
>all children in the neighbourhood irrespective of caste, creed, community,
>religion, economic condition or social status, so that there would be no
>segregation in schools."
>
>
>
> The commission further said that such
>neighbourhood schools would provide 'good' education to children, 'because
>sharing life with common people is an essential ingredient of good
>education'. It is also stated that 'the establishment of such schools will
>compel rich, privileged and powerful classes to take an interest in the
>system of public education.'
>
>
>
>5. That the 'Neghbourhood School' has been a part of
>the national policy for over thirty-five years and the Court might consider
>ordering the authorities to implement this policy. Under the concept and
>policy of the NS, the schools should not entertain applications of the
>parents from distant places. The small kids traveling from distant places
>go through a lot of physical and mental fatigue while commuting between
>residences and schools, apart from unusual increase in the traffic,
>expenses and pollution. It is submitted that on November 18, 1997, in a
>tragic incident, a school bus carrying children fell down in the river
>Yamuna resulting in death of as many as 30 school kids, which would not
>have happened, had the authorities strictly implemented the neighbour
>school policy.
>
>
>
>6. That it is submitted that under the Delhi School
>Education Act and Rules, 1973, the private schools must admit children only
>from the locality and within a maximum distance of 3 km. Hence, school
>should entertain applications from outside the locality only if sufficient
>children are not available in the neighbourhood. A reference is made to
>rule 50(ii) of the DSE Rules, which expressly mandates that no private
>school shall be recognized or continued to be recognized by the appropriate
>authorities unless the school fulfills condition that " subject to the
>provisions of the clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India,
>the school serves a real need of the locality and is not likely to affect
>adversely the enrolment in a nearby school, which has already been
>recognized by the appropriate authority." The Hon'ble Court might
>consider enforcing the said Act and the Rules, and also consider reducing
>the distance so that the neighbourhood school concept and policy is
>enforced in letter and spirit.
>
>
>
>7. That it is further submitted that while allotting
>the lands to the private schools, the DDA and the L & DO have given
>conditions inter- alia that "The society shall not refuse admission to the
>residents of the locality".
>
>
>
>8. That it is submitted that the government had
>appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Acharya Ramamurti, a
>well-known educationist with other renowned members, to examine various
>aspects of the 1986 national education policy, in 1990. The committee
>strongly supported the neighbourhood school concept and called for making
>of essential legislation to dispense with the early selection of young
>children by private schools.
>
>
>
>9. That the central government had also appointed a
>committee headed by Professor Yash Pal in 1993 'to reduce the academic
>burden on school students'. The committee in its report at paragraph 5 (a)
>has said, " The practice of holding tests and interviews for admission to
>nursery be abolished". The group constituted by the central government to
>'examine the feasibility of implementation of the recommendation' of the
>Yash Pal committee has since accepted this recommendation of the committee.
>It is submitted that most private schools in the guise of 'interactions
>with parents', in fact violates the spirit of the Yash Pal committee report
>in as much as they indulge in 'observing' children and ask them questions
>while parents undergo the process of 'interactions'; thereby they draw
>erroneous inferences on the qualification for admission, or rejection of
>the kids.
>
>
>
>10. That it is understood that the Maharashtra State
>Government had constituted the Ram Joshi Committee on selection and
>interview of children at the early stage, and the committee recommended
>against any such interviews and selection.
>
>
>
>11. That the selection without any transparent objective
>criteria would lead to a denial of equal opportunity and would perhaps get
>hit by the Article 14 of the Constitution. It is understood, that the
>Unnikrishnan Judgment has extended this Article to the private institutions
>as an 'extended arm of the State'.
>
>
>
>12. That there is no evidence of selection and sorting of
>young children on any criterion, much less on the basis of background of
>their parents, in any developed and democratic countries. In England,
>children used to be selected for different types of schools at age of 11
>until 1960s, but the practice has since been dispensed with by the
>introduction of the 'comprehensive schools', and empirical evidences
>confirm that overall school standard has improved with mixing of children.
>
>
>
>13. It is submitted that the aim of schools has been to
>gauze or test children's 'intelligence' or 'talent' or 'merit' either
>interviewing or observing them, or indirectly by 'interacting' with
>parents. The accurate identification and assessment of intelligence even by
>way of the famous IQ (Intelligence Quotient) tests have been problematic
>and questionable. The whole notion of measuring intelligence has been
>controversial for the whole of the twentieth century, and in the early
>twenty first century the literature demonstrates that the whole concept is
>still highly controversial. The most tests are based on three assumptions.
>First, there are 'things' (for example intelligence, social behaviors) that
>could be accurately measured. Second, they measure what they are expected
>to measure and third, the measurements could make accurate prediction of
>child's performance, achievement and future. These tests, interviews and
>interactions totally disregard the social and environmental factors and
>context while making measurements and drawing inferences.
>
>
>
> It is further submitted that the goal of the
>intelligence test, first developed by Binet in 1905, was to plan for the
>education of the child in a regular school and not to reject them, sent out
>and segregate. The concept of IQ became a highly political concept, in
>particular, used to denigrate ethnic, racial and social groups. R. J.
>Herrnstein and C. Murray published 'The Bell Curve' in America in 1994.
>Following this, a group of sociologists of the University of California at
>Berkeley published the 'Inequality by Design' in 1996 to show how the
>social environment and conscious policy mold inequality. Sally Tomlinson in
>England has written how these tests, IQ in particular, have been used as a
>mechanism for legitimating of inequality and sending children to segregated
>special schools. Continuing with the arguments against narrow
>interpretation of intelligence, the American educationist H. Gardener
>published in 1993 his theory of 'multiple intelligence' (spatial, musical,
>kinesthetic, inter-personal and intra- personal, in addition to the
>traditional double intelligence of linguistics and logical) derived on the
>basis of meaning of intelligence in different cultures and observing the
>capabilities of children with disabilities.
>
>
>
> It is submitted that these materials are submitted
>before Hon'ble Court to affirm that in the developed countries after a
>series of researches and studies all forms of tests and selection before
>entry into schools have been dispensed with as they neither justify any
>pedagogical and educational purpose nor are they in accordance with the
>basic democratic principle of equality in opportunity for accessing schools
>an early stage.
>
>
>
>14. That it submitted that a child should not suffer
>because of the 'performance' or 'background' of his/her parents. This
>violates his/her 'human rights' as inequality is in-built into the system.
>It will exclude and deprive admissions to a large number of children
>perceived to be 'disabled'- physical or intellectual. It is understood that
>affidavits have been filed on behalf of the schools that
>interviews/interactions (with parents and children) are required to detect
>'disabilities' and 'learning disabilities'. This seems giving a big
>'market' to private testers and assessors of 'learning disabilities'. It is
>submitted that in developed countries, the theory of learning disability
>and special needs is being contested and the children are encouraged to
>learn together in inclusive settings in regular schools. In India, a large
>number of 'disabled' children are studying in ordinary schools (census 2001
>gives their literacy rate of 54.5%). This practice of rejecting children on
>the ground of disability or sending them to 'special schools' (which do not
>exist in India in a very large number, and worldwide they are being closed
>and phased out) would deprive a large number of children from 'good'
>education after getting declared as 'learning disabled', apart from putting
>them under severe stigma at a very young age. Such exclusion would go
>against the government policy, the Persons with Disabilities Act; and the
>Salamanca Statement of the UNESCO, which calls for 'inclusive education'
>for children to which India is a signatory.
>
>
>
>15. That it is submitted that in the first admission of a
>child in an educational institution, no demand can be made for a level of
>achievement that could be said to justify a `selection'. The sole purpose
>of the admission is to introduce the child into the formal system of
>education. The only requirement for this, according to pedagogical
>principles the world over, is that the child be at an age at which this
>introduction can be consider appropriate. The so-called `selection'
>procedure introduces spurious criteria for rejection of children, with the
>accompanying trauma for the child. The only thing the child `learns' from
>this earliest encounter is that she has `failed' to enter the school,
>though it is no fault of the child. In fact, it is the school, which has
>failed to cope intelligently with the problem of large number of
>applications and limited seats. Admission by draw of lot, and not so-called
>`selection', is the answer. It does not stigmatize or penalize a child for
>what is in fact the school's failure. It is submitted that the drawing of
>lot should not be linked with destiny, as it is an accepted principle when
>selection has to be made from among equals. The argument that drawing lot
>would deprive a school from taking mixed and diverse groups of children is
>also statistically incorrect. In fact, this practice would bring in far
>more diversity in schools. In addition, it would completely eliminate bias,
>favors and patronage given by many schools in name of admission.
>
>
>16. That, we in our respectful submission, would like to
>make the following suggestions to reduce the number of applications that
>schools are flooded with, which prompt them to resort to selection and
>sorting of children causing tremendous psychological pressure and stigma on
>children as well as their parents: -
>
>
>
>· Schools should follow the neighbourhood policy and principles;
>reduce the area to 1km or even less than that, to automatically reduce the
>number of applications.
>
>
>
>· Schools should not ask non-essential questions in the
>registration/application form (like parents job, salary, car brand, and
>'what you can do for schools?' etc). This would reduce bias from the
>principal/selectors mind.
>
>
>
>· Schools should conduct a transparent draw of lots for
>limited/reduced number of seats.
>
>
>
>· Children should not be brought to schools when parents are called
>for drawing lot or 'interactions', in case such limited interactions become
>unavoidable.
>
>
>
>· In case Hon'ble Court feels that some limited selection is
>inevitable, the responsibility for distributing seats could be given to the
>Resident Welfare Association or groups/committees specially constituted for
>this purpose.
>
>
>
>· For children excess of seats available in neighbourhood schools,
>government could be asked to open more schools, and even private groups and
>non-government organizations could be asked to start primary schools.
>
>
>
>
>
>Deponent
>
>
>
>VERIFICATION
>
> Verified at New Delhi on this 23rd day of October
>2004 that the facts as stated in the above affidavit are correct and true
>to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there from.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Deponent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Yantras for power and success. Yantras for peace and joy.
http://www.astroyogi.com/NewMsn/astroshopping/yantra/ Yantras that change
your life.
More information about the eebill
mailing list